I’m an itinerant golfer. Lacking both a home course and a group of regulars, I’ll play a dozen different courses over the passage of a season (I’ve played seventy different courses in my “career”), choosing one or the other as the urge strikes. Sometimes, I’ll just head out early in the morning in a random direction and play the first course I find with an open slot (you can do that in Michigan, where you can’t drive fifteen minutes without hitting a course). I like variety.

But when my swing goes awry, there’s a place I return to to get it all back together. I think of it as my “Get Well” course.

Get Well isn’t fancy, doesn’t have a practice range, and conditions are ... well ... highly variable. But there’s something about it that brings out the best in my game. When I can’t find a fairway on the road, I’ll go to Get Well and hit every one. When my putting is off, Get Well gets it back on line. When I feel disjointed and awkward, my swings on Get Well groove.

It’s all in my mind, of course, but golf is after all a mental game. I think Get Well is just friendly enough, and familiar enough to take off all the pressure. I nearly always find a friendly group there to join. In fact, the players at Get Well are without a doubt the most easy going I’ve ever met.

My swing is off this week. I’m heading to Get Well tomorrow.

It is Independence Day, and a good time to reflect upon the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. We spend a good deal of time on this document in my AP Political Science classes, for contained therein is the summation of the work of Enlightenment thinkers, and especially of John Locke. A mini lesson, if you will excuse my wandering from the golf course.

Here are the opening paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Compare Jefferson’s words to John Locke’s from his Second Treatise:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Jefferson’s short version:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

More from Locke:

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

Jefferson summarizes:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And Locke once again:

When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the delegation of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place, who have no such authority or delegation.

Jefferson’s version:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If you’ve never tried it, I recommend a full reading of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. It’s hard, but meaningful.

arrived at my golf league this afternoon to discover that the Commissioner had declared the final round of the year to be a special event scramble. I almost went home to watch the US Open. Still, in the spirit of harmony, I went along with the league’s plan. I think it’ll be the last time for that.

I’m frankly tired of scrambles. They’re ok as a silly charity event, but I don’t really enjoy a scramble as golf. I don’t play well in them. And when there’s money involved—as there was this afternoon—all I’m doing is making a contribution to the “A Team’s ” bank account. And there’s always an “A Team” that’s in it for the money, rather than the fun.

I don’t play well in scrambles because my game isn’t suited to the format. I’m a medium length hitter, with a good short game and terrific putting skills. On my own, it’s all about smart, conservative golf. I play for the sure bogey, and take advantage of the par and birdie opportunities as they present themselves. I plan on getting to a long par 4 in three and making good putts for par or bogey at worse. It’s a formula that allows me to score well—even against guys who drive the ball forty to fifty yards past me.

My brand of golf, however, has no place in a scramble. Scrambles are about banging the ball as far as humanly possible, then going pin hunting on the approach shots. There’s absolutely no place for a bogey—and precious little for a par. It’s birdie or bust. There really isn’t a lot of thinking involved—and it’s the thinking that I enjoy most about the game.

Off the tee, I’m pretty useless in a scramble. My usual easy swing that’s designed to keep the ball in play looks pretty feeble against guys swinging out of their shoes. One of the others nearly always will be in bounds, and that’s the ball we’ll use. There’s no premium for finding a fairway because scramble rules generally allow player to place the ball within a clublength of the original location and everyone is taking advantage of that rule to “fluff it up” like a tee.

Following tee bomb comes the gouge. Playing to the fat part of the green, or just short of an open approach—as I like to do—is asking for scorn. The goal is to stick the ball close enough for a birdie putt. If you try and fail, it doesn’t matter because someone else probably will succeed.

After nearly every one of my shots in a scramble, I think: “If I were playing on my own, that wouldn’t such be a bad result. I know how to get in for a par or bogey from there.” And then someone else sticks theirs in a slightly better spot. What I’ve often found, however, is that the “slightly better spot” often isn’t one that suits my game. Scramble teams often play from yardages, angles and lies I avoid like the plague. What suits one man’s game doesn’t necessarily suit another’s.

I also don’t handle the dynamics of the scramble game well. If I try to keep up with the bomb and gouge, the result is a string of poor shots—off line, fat, thin. On the other hand, if I play my usual game, I rarely make a contribution. As a result, my delegated role is generally to hit a safe shot so that everyone else can go for broke. That’s not a lot of fun after a while. It’s a bit like being the last guy chosen for a schoolyard baseball team.

The one aspect that I do enjoy is the putting. I am nearly always slotted to putt last in the group (I putt better than most), and can hole some very difficult shots after seeing how three other guys’ balls react.

But that’s not enough for me to really enjoy the golf.  I do, however, enjoy the company.

A better format for a league special event might be a four man best ball (we already play two man best ball for our regular format). Everyone on the team plays their own ball, and the lowest score is the team score. That’s the format we used at the Crowne Plaza Invitational Pro-Am and I really enjoyed that. Best ball allows each player to stick to their usual game in a team environment. The problem with four man best ball is that it generally requires handicaps to make it fair.  But in a league environment, that shouldn’t be a problem.

In a one shot outing, I think it would be possible to use the Peoria or Callaway handicapping systems to balance a four ball format, but you’d probably need a computer program to handle the results calculations. The organizers would first need to figure out everyone’s individual handicaps, then go back and retroactively apply those to the holes, and then determine the low score for each—all in time to satisfy the waiting players. I’m guessing that there’s already golf league and outing software that will let you manage all of that, though.

I’ve already turned down the “opportunity” to play in a 36 hole scramble this next Thursday. I expect I’ll bail on more throughout the summer until the bad taste wears off.

Upstart wedge manufacturer Feel Golf says it will ignore the USGA’s year end ban on sales of wedges with the “aggressive groves.”

Lee Miller, Feel Golf CEO said We’re a business. We’re going to offer what our customers want. That means we’ll be selling wedges with both the old and new grooves as long as there is a demand. They are just too popular to discontinue—they really offer a unique short-game advantage.”

The pro tours switched to the new USGA/R&A conforming grooves this year. Significant amateur tournaments all will require them starting in 2014, while local championships may hold out until 2024.

The impetus for the new groove rules was that too many pro players had adopted a bomb-and-gouge strategy: hitting the ball as far as possible without regard for the fairway, and then relying on “aggressive” grooves in the wedges to get the ball to the green with adequate spin. But if that style of play was a problem, it was one that only affected players at the highest levels—i.e., the pros. The rest of us can’t use that strategy because we don’t have the “bomb.” For 99 and 44/100ths of the players out there, all the aggressive grooves did was make it a little easier around the greens.

If there’s a problem with equipment or playing styles on the pro tours, it should be up to the pro tours to police them. I see absolutely nothing wrong with having two sets of equipment standards: one for the Tours, and one for the rest of us. As far as I’m concerned, the USGA has lost its way. Rather than worrying about whether the pros are going “too low,” they should be worried about the millions who have given up the game of golf because it’s too difficult. The future of golf and of the USGA doesn’t lie with the PGA or Euro Tours. It lies with the millions of amateurs—mostly hackers—who pay for the lessons (big name pros don’t pay for their lessons), buy the equipment (I daresay most pros don’t buy equipment) and pay the greens fees (which pros don’ t do either). The USGA budget—television revenues aside—comes from membership fees paid by hackers.

Let the PGA Tour regulate the PGA Tour. The USGA should stick to its own mission statement: “Based on a shared love and respect for golf, we preserve its past, foster its future, and champion its best interests for everyone who enjoys the game.” Everyone The focus should be on Everyone, not a small segment who might happen to be able to hit 300 yard drives and then spin the ball to the hole out of six inch rough.

The USGA needs to concentrate on rules for

and develop equipment standards for Everyone. And if the result is that the PGA Tour has a different standard than the USGA, so be it.

There’s not going to be any support, however, for two standards from the manufacturers. Their entire marketing strategy is based on pushing the equipment that the pros play.

Feel Golf’s press release follows:

A week ago, I was in a state of despair over the depths to which my game had sunk. It was a tale of topped balls, shanks left and right, banana slices and—once or twice—the complete whiff. I was out of my mind with frustration and at the point where I was ready to simply hang up my clubs for the season—two months early. I decided instead to take a week off and give it one more chance.

What a difference a week makes.

When I returned to the course Friday, it was with an entirely new game. Ballstriking was solid, if not particularly long, and with some above average putting,  I managed a solid round. It is not back to where I was midsummer, but I have hope for the remainder of the fall season.

I have no idea what I was doing wrong to begin with, and certainly have no idea how I fixed it (or even if it’s truly fixed). The comings and goings of the swing is one of the great mysteries of golf. And it’s a mystery that disquiets the pros as well as amateurs. Can anyone doubt the pain of players such as Ian Baker-Finch and David Duval? Or perhaps of Tiger Woods? Imagine knowing that you can play the game at the highest levels and wondering daily what happened to those skills.

Given the vagries of the game, I’m glad I don’t have to play for a living.

In magazines and on the web, members of the major golf media recently have decreed the death of the high-end, high maintence, pristine course. The problem, it seems, is that the golf course industry overbuilt in the 90s and oughts, anticipating a Tiger and Baby Boomer demand for golf that never materialized. Now, facing a semi-permanent recession, course owners are desperate for ways to cut costs.

A solution, according to the golf futurists, is the rise of a “new” kind of course: low in maintence costs and impact on the envIronment—sustainable, in the buzzword of the new envirospeak. Rough should be allowed to return to prairie; bunkers grown shaggy; weedkiller and fertilizer eschewed; constant watering of fairways and greens pared. Regretfully, they say, “sustainable” means our courses no longer will be emerald jewels. But brown is the new green.

That this development is treated as revolutionary probably says more about the golf writing fraternity than they would care to admit. For writers who regularly play the Top 100 list as guests of the resort, I’m sure that the concept of a fairway that’s more brown than green is groundbreaking—or at the very least, romantic. It’s funny to read them wax poetic about the brown paths of the classic Scottish clubs and fantasize about similar shades in the United States.

But for those of us who spend our lives on the public links, shaggy brown courses have long been part of our everyday experience. The municipal and public courses I play are far from pristine. They’re green and soft in the spring; browner, and hard in the summer; worn and leafy in the fall. All of the public tracks I play water the greens regularly, but not all do the same for the fairways. Tee boxes also are hit-and-miss. The best fairways are completely filled in, but not always with grass. On some, various species of “weeds” have won the Darwinian struggle. But at least there aren’t any bare spots. The rough has always been ... rough.

The courses I frequent most often have been practicing “sustainable” golf for as long as I can remember. I don’t romanticize the summer’s sunburned shades, but acknowledge that they’re part of the passage of the year. The course changes with the seasons. It’s part of the game for a good many of us.

It seems to me that the people who play on the perfected fairways and greens of the high end courses miss a great deal. The unvarying sameness of the manicured fairways, maintained “rough” and measured stimps is fine for the occasional special round, but I think it would—in a way—get old. Perhaps that’s why the golf writers have plunged into the seas of brown grass like a migration of lemmings. They’re looking for something out of the experience of their “ordinary” rounds.

This is the 20th in a series of articles on things to do to feed your golf addiction in the golfing offseason:

Attend A Demo Day

While golf courses may have off seasons, golf retailers operate year-round. Thus, even when snow covers the ground, our local shops are in full swing, using every trick in the book to get golfers in the store and move merchandise. One such promotion is the “demo day.” At Miles of Golf, Carls Golfland, Golfsmith, King Par and other southeastern Michigan establishments, equipment reps for the major manufacturers schedule time at the heated or indoor tees to show their latest wares and offer a chance to try them out. The reps are excited to talk about the new gear, and range balls are free, so it’s a deal that can’t be beat.

Miles of Golf in Ann Arbor held two demo days this past weekend. On Saturday, I spent a couple of hours testing clubs from Cobra, Mizuno, Adams and Ping. I returned on Sunday for TaylorMade, Callaway and Nike. I learned a lot about the new year’s clubs, tried out most of them and came away with a good pile of notes for future posts. I didn’t actually buy anything, but Miles was offering some very good deals.

The Demo Days also were a chance to try out Miles of Golf’s “Trackman” system. Trackman is a driving range bay with a doppler radar installed. The system measures your swing as you practice and feeds you information on carry and roll, swing and ball speed, angle and spin rate. For me, the bottom line of the data was that I don’t hit it far enough, my launch angle is too steep and my spin rate too high. Other than that, I’m good to go.

Keep an eye out for demo days in your area. They’re a fun—and cheap—way to fed the golf addiction.